Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5382585 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 18 Jan 2026 · Published 18 Jan 2026 · Application 5382585
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
A Aiolupotea
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Respondents name and identifying details.
- The application is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The Applicants applied for refund of the bond and compensation.
- By way of background, the parties signed a flat/house sharing agreement which started on 20 September 2024. The agreement ended on 18 October 2025. This was a four-bedroom house. At the time of the tenancy, the Applicants shared one bedroom, the Respondent occupied another bedroom and two other flatmates occupied the remaining two bedrooms. The Applicants bedroom had an ensuite. The Applicants had exclusive occupation of their bedroom but would share the communal areas such as the lounge, kitchen and laundry. The Respondent provided a standard Tenancy Services Tenancy agreement between himself and the owner who he submitted lived in Australia. This Tenancy agreement started on 16 October 2024 and had no proper fixed term end period. It stated the end date was “16 October”.
- The Respondent submitted this was a flat sharing agreement. The Applicants submitted they thought this was a flat sharing agreement however there were some witnesses who wrote letters of support for the Applicants and referred to the Respondent as the Landlord.
- There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
- Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. The terms ’residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined as: residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement
- Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 10 RTA provides that, where a party to proceedings contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, they have the burden of proving the Act does not apply.
- In considering the evidence, I find this is a flat sharing agreement and the relationship between the parties is that of flatmates. The Respondent has provided a Tenancy Agreement with the Landlord which appears to be a standard tenancy agreement. The arrangement between the parties appears to be a genuine flat sharing agreement. The Applicants occupied one bedroom of the house which they had exclusive occupation of. The Applicants shared communal facilities with the other occupants including the Respondent. For these reasons, I find the arrangement between the Applicants and Respondent is that of flatmates and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine this claim.
- The application is dismissed.
- Section 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- As the Applicants have not been successful, name suppression is not granted to the Applicants. As the Respondent has been successful, name suppression has been granted to the Respondent.